Many histories by Mongolian scholars exclude some states built by Proto-Mongol ethnic groups. Here I tried to document them briefly. So let’s discuss!

The states are:

• Former Yan (337-370), formed by Xianbei Murong clan.
• Later Yan (384-407 or 409), formed by Xianbei Murong clan.
• Western Yan (384-394), formed by Xianbei Murong clan.
• Southern Yan (398-410), formed by Xianbei Murong clan.
• Northern Wei (386-534), formed by Xianbei Tuoba clan. The Tuoba clan name was later changed to Yuan.
• Western Wei (535-556), after disintegration of Northern Wei, Yuan Baoju was installed emperor and established Western Wei with help of Xianbei general Yuwen Tai.
• Eastern Wei (534-550), after disintegration of Northern Wei, a descendant Yuan Shanjian was installed emperor with help of Gao Huan.
• Northern Qi (550-577), Gao Huan’s son succeeded Eastern Wei and established Northern Qi.
• Northern Zhou (557-581), after death of Western Wei’s Yuwen Tai, his nephew Yuwen Hu forced emperor of Western Wei and established Northern Zhou as Yuwen Tai’ son Yuwen Jue its emperor.
• Sui Dynasty (581-619), formed by Wendi emperor, or with his Xianbei name Puliuru Jian.

I think you shall add Liao Dynasty (906-1115),formed by Yelu Clan by Yelu Aboji ,are Qidan are more closer related to Mongol than Murong and Xianbei ?

Next .

Of course they are but Liao, Western Liao, and Rouran are not usually excluded by Mongolian scholars.

It is that I just started a forum for the Mongol society and i wanted to inform Mongols about these states
The link is here. http://bulgem.com/community/forums/35.aspx

Weren't the Xianbei more Tungus related than Proto Mongolic?

I thought Jurchen, Manchus were more Tungusic than Mongol ? They may belong to the same altaic-turkic language branch, but they are of different ethnic tribe from the Mongols.

For the Xianbei-established kingdom, they could probably be classified as "mongoloid/nomadic state" in northern China, but to associate Xianbei or Khitan to Mongols is IMO not exactly correct, since "Mongols" hadn't really existed at that time. Mongols originated from Shiwei .

Yes you are correct on that. Modern Mongol-speaking people are originated from Donghu, Shiwei, and Xiongnu. Scholars in Republic of Mongolia usually exclude those preceding states. I believe there are a lot of Chinese, who are actually assimilated proto-Mongols. I think Mongolia should include those in programs for friendlier relationship.

Liao,IMO, is more as Chinese as five Hu than western LIao.

To me history of Mongols, we must create "History of Proto-Mongol" and divide it into

- History of Xiongnu
- History of Rouran
- History of Xianbei
- History of Hunnic Brotherhood
- History of Hanlyks
- History of Khitan

It is specified here.

It is no matter of degree of sinification, if it is not completely assimilated.

If you were talking about "Altaic" states then you'd have even more to talk about haha. There were LOTs.

Khalkha-Mongols appeared and occupied territries of modern Mongolia (both Inner and Outer) only few centuries ago.
Before all those lands were populated by Turkic nomads (Orkhon inscriptions, various Turkic qaghanates and khanates, etc.). Hunnu, Toba, Sha-to, even Genghis Khan and his so-called "Mongols" (Moghols, or Mughals) were Turkic speakers. All geographical names in the Secret History are Turkic, later all renamed by Khalkha-Mongols. Only those who are on territory of modern Kazakhstan stay unchanged (Altay mountains, Ertis and Buqtarma rivers, etc.).

You are wrong on that Aksakal. I don't think you are clever as real Aksakals or Akburals. If you are Kerei, Naiman, or Merkit (etc), you are Mongol too.

I think what you're referring to is "Altaic" which is really nothing but a large linguistic classification similar to say Indo-European. Either way not all Altaic tribes are classified as Mongol or Proto-Mongol.

Altaic has some specialties compared to Indo-European, it has more tight tie between the nations and not as extent as Indo-European.
There are Mongolic, Turkic, Tungusic (, Japanese, Korean) nationalities and Mongolic and Tungusic are tied to each other in a historical way, and Mongolic and Turkic are also tied in a way that Uzbek and Kazakhs are offspring from Mongolic, but speaking Turkic, and in many other Central Asian cultural heritage.
They all can be combined together under Pan-Mongolism as Imperial Japan once tried to do and as Buryat Mongols still tends, while there is also so-called Turanic movement.

You are under strong influence of the Khalkha-Mongol state nationalistic propaganda and censorship, who created personality cult of Genghis Khan.
Kereis, Naimans, Qongyrats, Jalairs, Merkits, Onguts, Tatars, etc. and other so-called "Mongols" were Turkic speakers before 12th century, during 12th-13th centuries, and are Turkic speakers today.

I realize that but my point is that Altaic is but a mere linguistic classification just like Indo-European is. Arguing that all Altaic speakers are Proto-Mongol is equivalent to saying Hindi and Punjabi speakers in India are Proto-Europeans. As for your argument that Altaic is more tight between nations, that definitely is not the case at all. Empires that were created by what you define as Altaic speakers constantly warred with each from the Ottomans to the Safavids to the Mughals to the Manchus and their battles against the Dzhunghars and Japanese annexation of Korea are just a mere few examples off the top of my head.




All of which historically saw themselves as independent of each other and at times fiercely warred with another.



Like I said, go back to my Indo-European example.



Since the Turkic tribes made an impact in world history before the Mongols did, I find this rather hard to believe. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it was the other way around. Sources please?



Interesting but with all due respect, you are talking about something more reminiscent of a nationalist dream than academic reality.

While I would not disagree with your assertion itself, aren't you a bit hypocritical here?

If you demand "sources" for even widely known knowledge such as that Han Chinese were much discriminated in the Mongol Empire, you should also supply sources for your "arguments"(LOL) every step of your way. Are you willing to do that?



Your demand will be more favorably received if you provide some for your assertions as well.



Perhaps he learned the practice from you.

Most Naiman tribes are absorbed into Kazak today. In fact, other western tribes like Oirat and Dzungar, were more Kazah than Mongol.

I am not sure what's your definition of "proto-mongol"? Do you mean any Altaic tribes? I think only the Xianbei tribe Shiwei was direct orginator of later Mongols.